IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v15y2024i4p604-614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to constitute global citizens' forums: Key selection principles

Author

Listed:
  • John S. Dryzek
  • Simon J. Niemeyer

Abstract

Once imagined as a theoretical possibility, global citizen deliberation is now beginning to appear in the practice of governance. How should global citizens' forums be constituted? A largely unexamined consensus on random selection as the ideal method to locate citizen participants has fractured as its limitations become more apparent. We undertake a systematic comparative examination of random selection and its alternatives, emphasizing, respectively, demographic diversity, discursive diversity, developmental participation, and affectedness. These alternatives are evaluated in terms of how well they promote inclusive and high‐quality deliberation within the forum; how well they facilitate broader functions such as recommending policy decisions, providing information to policy makers on the distribution of informed global opinion, enhancing macro‐level deliberation, and strengthening global discourses and publics; and how well they secure the perceived legitimacy of a forum. We show how different sorts of recruitment and representation might be combined to good effect, in the context of a proposal for a global citizens' assembly on genome editing.

Suggested Citation

  • John S. Dryzek & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2024. "How to constitute global citizens' forums: Key selection principles," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(4), pages 604-614, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:15:y:2024:i:4:p:604-614
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13409
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13409?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goodin, Robert E., 2004. "Representing Diversity," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 453-468, July.
    2. Bailey Flanigan & Paul Gölz & Anupam Gupta & Brett Hennig & Ariel D. Procaccia, 2021. "Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies," Nature, Nature, vol. 596(7873), pages 548-552, August.
    3. Michael Vlerick, 2020. "Towards Global Cooperation: The Case for a Deliberative Global Citizens' Assembly," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(3), pages 305-314, May.
    4. Dryzek, John S. & Niemeyer, Simon, 2008. "Discursive Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(4), pages 481-493, November.
    5. Niemeyer, Simon & Veri, Francesco & Dryzek, John S. & Bächtiger, André, 2024. "How Deliberation Happens: Enabling Deliberative Reason," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 345-362, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maija Karjalainen & Lauri Rapeli, 2015. "Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 407-422, January.
    2. Antoaneta Dimitrova & Bernard Steunenberg, 2017. "Pitfalls on the Road to Frey’s Democracy of the Future," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 213-222, November.
    3. Dale, Elina & Peacocke, Elizabeth F. & Movik, Espen & Voorhoeve, Alex & Ottersen, Trygve & Kurowski, Christoph & Evans, David B. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof & Gopinathan, Unni, 2023. "Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119799, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Petra Guasti & Brigitte Geissel, 2019. "Rethinking Representation: Representative Claims in Global Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 93-97.
    5. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Nicolle Zeegers, 2016. "Civil Society Organizations’ Participation in the EU and Its Challenges for Democratic Representation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(4), pages 27-39.
    7. Katherine Vande Velde & Jean Huge & Daniel D.A. Friess & Nico Koedam & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2019. "Stakeholder discourses on urban mangrove conservation and management," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/289122, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Mohammed Basheer & Victor Nechifor & Alvaro Calzadilla & Claudia Ringler & David Hulme & Julien J. Harou, 2022. "Balancing national economic policy outcomes for sustainable development," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Brown, Judy & Tregidga, Helen, 2017. "Re-politicizing social and environmental accounting through Rancière: On the value of dissensus," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-21.
    10. Tom Demeulemeester & Dries Goossens & Ben Hermans & Roel Leus, 2023. "Fair integer programming under dichotomous and cardinal preferences," Papers 2306.13383, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    11. Paul Gölz & Dominik Peters & Ariel Procaccia, 2022. "In This Apportionment Lottery, the House Always Wins," Post-Print hal-03834513, HAL.
    12. John Dryzek, 2015. "Deliberative engagement: the forum in the system," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 750-754, December.
    13. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    14. Robert Weymouth & Janette Hartz-Karp & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Repairing Political Trust for Practical Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    15. Tasneem Siddiqui & Lucy Szaboova & W. Neil Adger & Ricardo Safra de Campos & Mohammad Rashed Alam Bhuiyan & Tamim Billah, 2021. "Policy Opportunities and Constraints for Addressing Urban Precarity of Migrant Populations," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S2), pages 91-105, April.
    16. Anselm Schneider & Andreas Scherer, 2015. "Corporate Governance in a Risk Society," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(2), pages 309-323, January.
    17. Isyaku, Usman, 2021. "What motivates communities to participate in forest conservation? A study of REDD+ pilot sites in Cross River, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Dryzek, John S. & Stevenson, Hayley, 2011. "Global democracy and earth system governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1865-1874, September.
    19. Lodi, Andrea & Sankaranarayanan, Sriram & Wang, Guanyi, 2024. "A framework for fair decision-making over time with time-invariant utilities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 319(2), pages 456-467.
    20. Steven Slaughter, 2017. "The G20 and Climate Change: The Transnational Contribution of Global Summitry," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(3), pages 285-293, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:15:y:2024:i:4:p:604-614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.